GUILTY UK - Rebecca Watts, 16, Bristol, 19 Feb 2015 #11

[Alyce]

There doesn't seem to be any CCTV from CML at all. Point is, if they have NM's car on CCTV in the CH area on the way there on 19th, wouldn't that CCTV also have caught NM going back to CML then back again to CH? Unless, as I said, he took another route

What about the CCTV from the early hours of Tuesday Feb 24, the people moving the box out to the van ?

and I agree, NM could have taken another route when going back - he would have been in a hurry and also was not going via Tescos on the way back.

I can see it both ways. If the neighbour is absolutely correct re time and date then at least NM ( and possibly SH as well, though less likely ) has to have been in the house at CML.

Otherwise, if her timings are not correct, then NM and SH may just have stayed at Crown Hill all day, with the proviso that if AG decided to call the police and the police said they were going to come round, then NM could have departed the house, saying he was going to have a drive round to try and find Becky . And at that point, he would then have gone home and put the body into the house at CML.

 

[Tortoise]

Regarding Becky having being put in a suitcase (red one with a ripped top) - WARNING GRAPHIC CONTENT

The problem with this, for me, is timing and rigor. If her body was put into a suitcase shortly after death, either at CH or CML, then she would have had to be curled up. Rigor would set in and after 8-12 hours the body would be stiff. This would last for a while until the effect of rigor stated to reverse, which would be 36-48 hours later.

In order to use the saw for dismemberment, I would think that her limbs would need to be straightened out in order to make the clean cuts. According to the timeline we have been given, the dismemberment happened (or started at least) just over 24 hours after she was killed i.e after NM had bought the saw at 12.51pm on Fri 20th whilst he was alone at CML.

So surely,

1) she wasn't put in the suitcase prior to dismemberment
Or
2) she was put in the suitcase shortly after her death, but the dismemberment didn't happen until later than Fri 20th.

http://www.exploreforensics.co.uk/rigor-mortis-and-lividity.html

or, 3) she was put in the suitcase to bring her in, and then taken out of it as soon as they got her body inside.

 

[Clio]

or, 3) she was put in the suitcase to bring her in, and then taken out of it as soon as they got her body inside.

But where would that have happened? Take suitcase down to car at CML, take body out of boot and put in suitcase outside the house then drag the suitcase inside? Also there was no blood inside the suitcase according to Prosecution.

If she was wrapped in a duvet to be put in the car at CH then why not take her into CML still wrapped in a duvet?

 

[Tortoise]

BIB Couldn't have been noises between 11am and 2pm if NM was at CH by the time AG got back from hospital at 12:45pm

It's not even certain that the argument and the noises were on consecutive days. It might even be that the argument was in the evening of the 18th and the "noises" were on the 20th

I see it as it's within those times, not constant for 3 hours.

I think she is sure of the dates because of something on her phone. She would probably recall complaining about it to whoever she was talking to.

 

[cottonweaver]

Thinking further about the door slam and their story of being in the kitchen together when they heard it, shows their way of thinking at the time. I tried to put myself in their shoes. If SH had said to Anjie she was in the kitchen alone, then it would have raised the possibility that SH might not think straight off that it was BW going out, she would have had to logically consider that it was BW or NM and not be certain it was 'BW in one of her moods'. If they say they are together when they heard it, as well as the invented stomping, she doesn't have to consider it was anything else (except afterwards that it could have been the wind of course ).

RSBM
Even though I can't find any ref to "it was pretty constant" besides ITV quote ( SWebb 11-2 noises) I am putting it aside in my mind now even though I think it fits with her "I had nothing to do with this" line, ie. she wouldn't want to be going moving the body, she'd want him to deal with it etc....

Going back to the "wind slamming the door" thing. I re-watched that last night whilst I was waiting for WS to re-load ( yawn) and I interpret it as her saying - I dunno if she was in a mood and thus slammed or door purposefully or I dunno if she left and the wind caught the door and made it slam as she stomped out/off.
Is this what you meant or implying something else.

 

[Clio]

I see it as it's within those times, not constant for 3 hours.

I think she is sure of the dates because of something on her phone. She would probably recall complaining about it to whoever she was talking to.

Ok so if SW is correct, the argument was between 6-7pm on Wednesday 18th and the noises were "pretty constant" sometime between 11am and 2pm on Thursday 19th. I thought the prosecutions argument is that that the noises were on Friday 20th. Is this not correct?

 

[cottonweaver]

Anyway,

when SH is giving her account of what a violent person he is ( 3rd police interview) and all the rows, she seems to be trying to remember every one to bolster IMO.
Yet she doesn't add, yes we even had a screaming row the other week ( ie. evening of 18th) No reference to it?
This is the row that Bristol Post quotes her as saying lasted "about half an hour"

 

[Tortoise]

Something else occurred to me. Would NM have left his car on the driveway? When DG came home from work (assuming he drives as I have seen pics of a car being forensically examined on the drive) I would have thought he would expect to park on the drive, otherwise it would mean swapping cars around when NM/SH leave later that night.

 

[ColourPurple]

What about the CCTV from the early hours of Tuesday Feb 24, the people moving the box out to the van ?

and I agree, NM could have taken another route when going back - he would have been in a hurry and also was not going via Tescos on the way back.

I can see it both ways. If the neighbour is absolutely correct re time and date then at least NM ( and possibly SH as well, though less likely ) has to have been in the house at CML.

Otherwise, if her timings are not correct, then NM and SH may just have stayed at Crown Hill all day, with the proviso that if AG decided to call the police and the police said they were going to come round, then NM could have departed the house, saying he was going to have a drive round to try and find Becky . And at that point, he would then have gone home and put the body into the house at CML.

Good point about the CCTV of the van. Yeah, I'm the same, not convinced if the neighbours evidence is correct or a day out. Could be either. Re the neighbour's recollection, wasn't even the pros using her evidence as if it had happened a day later than we've seen reported?

 

[Tortoise]

There doesn't seem to be any CCTV from CML at all. Point is, if they have NM's car on CCTV in the CH area on the way there on 19th, wouldn't that CCTV also have caught NM going back to CML then back again to CH? Unless, as I said, he took another route

could just be that the police took them at their word about staying all day. and it hasn't all been checked after finding what they were looking for.

 

[Tortoise]

We only have SH's word for when the cut happened. This is one of the points she got confused over as to whether the cut was Friday or Saturday

yes, but not the Thursday, the day Becky died, when the loud word was heard by the neighbour.

 

[Gigi-G]

I'm stuck on motive, I really am. I can't see the wood for the trees. Always truth in amongst their lies: The cheque in the loft...protection of AW...from what?...sexual perversion...money...obsession...

I can't see the wood for the trees. What was the smoking gun that caused the argument on the 18th?

Same here. Am stuck on the Motive. And whether it was pre meditated.
Maybe the 'scare kit' was in the bag to do just that.
As we've read that NM always used to 'jump out' at BW and scare her.
So what escalated a scare tactic. Into more? Was it that SH found out NM had a secret crush on BW? . It's well documented he had a 'thing' for school girls.
There's so many twists and turns in this case. Unless NM comes totally clean, I don't think we'll ever find out.
As he won't want to disclose the deep dark secrets while his Mom and family are gonna hear/know.
He seems to want to save any chance of normality with his mom/family. As if he craves their love and compassion even thru this heinous crime.
So saving them of the gruesome details. It will seem outwardly that he was defending his mom therefore securing her love for him while he spends his time at 'her Majesty's pleasure' so to speak.

 

[cottonweaver]

WARNING Graphic .....


Going back to Clio's point about rigor mortis and suitcase issue.

Engaging with this evidence again - which is after all the most brutal, heinous aspect so far - and poss essential to SH culpability

why hasn't the path stated that rigor ( which as Clio says sets in 5-9hrs and remains for 2-3 days generally ) could actually enable him to make these "perfect" cuts with this saw?
ie. You could not surely move an already rigored body into a ( curved) bath without causing those rigor breaking injuries that paths can detect.
However you could move a rigored body onto a board on the bath etc and it's rigidity could assist you to do those precise cuts without any other assistance or clamps/supports etc.
Do you see what I mean ?

general stuff on rigor and blood flow settlement detection ( lividity) to detect where a body was placed after death
http://www.forensicpathologyonline.com/e-book/post-mortem-changes/muscular-changes

 

[Tortoise]

And only her word that it happened at all. Wonder if anybdy else saw the cut.

I read that when he was arrested he did have a cut or a wound on one wrist.

 

[ColourPurple]

Anyway,

when SH is giving her account of what a violent person he is ( 3rd police interview) and all the rows, she seems to be trying to remember every one to bolster IMO.
Yet she doesn't add, yes we even had a screaming row the other week ( ie. evening of 18th) No reference to it?
This is the row that Bristol Post quotes her as saying lasted "about half an hour"

Not only does she not mention it , she also says how they don't argue as she's scared of him/his reactions. If the arguing is on the night Becky was killed(rather than the night before) I wonder if it was connected to her ringing children in care number. That night by 8.45 SH is answering the door to get the takeaway (rather than NM) and by 9pm shes showing him the "Do you want to hide a body" video to "cheer him up ". I suppose he could still have been sulking if they had argued earlier.

 

[Clio]

Good point about the CCTV of the van. Yeah, I'm the same, not convinced if the neighbours evidence is correct or a day out. Could be either. Re the neighbour's recollection, wasn't even the pros using her evidence as if it had happened a day later than we've seen reported?

That's what I thought. In fact, SH's defence is arguing the dates could be wrong as well. Seems neither Prosecution or Defence are happy to accept that SW might possibly be right

 

[PrimeSuspect]

I don't think that would be clever to stay behind at CH.

If AG had come back and found SH there with child and no NM or BW, the later discovery of BW missing at the same time that NM wasn't there would raise immediate suspicions when she was eventually reported missing to police. The police probably would have made it a bigger priority to search CML.

If AG had got back before they returned (together), they could say it was the first time they had come round that day to return the tin. As it was, they managed to get back before AG and make it seem entirely innocent that BW had gone out and it had nothing to do with them.

Thinking further about the door slam and their story of being in the kitchen together when they heard it, shows their way of thinking at the time. I tried to put myself in their shoes. If SH had said to Anjie she was in the kitchen alone, then it would have raised the possibility that SH might not think straight off that it was BW going out, she would have had to logically consider that it was BW or NM and not be certain it was 'BW in one of her moods'. If they say they are together when they heard it, as well as the invented stomping, she doesn't have to consider it was anything else (except afterwards that it could have been the wind of course ).

Neither of them was smart enough to look further ahead and consider that if they were ever caught, the 'innocent' one who agreed they were together at the time would have to have been complicit in the lie about them being together.

ETA All my opinions of course - not proven yet

Great thinking and possibly true! NM over confident he would get away with it! His and SH's witness statement leaves them in the clear. Sadly, he/they nearly did.

 

[Tortoise]

But where would that have happened? Take suitcase down to car at CML, take body out of boot and put in suitcase outside the house then drag the suitcase inside? Also there was no blood inside the suitcase according to Prosecution.

If she was wrapped in a duvet to be put in the car at CH then why not take her into CML still wrapped in a duvet?

I think if he put her in the suitcase he would not have taken her out of the boot to do it. I think it's a pretty large boot area on that car.

I wouldn't risk carrying something that could be identified as a body wrapped in a duvet in broad daylight myself. He did say he used a trolley to carry the case and he wouldn't be able to use a trolley with just a body on it. IMO.

I can't see why he would lie about using a trolley either. It shows he was struggling with the weight.

 

[ColourPurple]

Same here. Am stuck on the Motive. And whether it was pre meditated.
Maybe the 'scare kit' was in the bag to do just that.
As we've read that NM always used to 'jump out' at BW and scare her.
So what escalated a scare tactic. Into more? Was it that SH found out NM had a secret crush on BW? . It's well documented he had a 'thing' for school girls.
There's so many twists and turns in this case. Unless NM comes totally clean, I don't think we'll ever find out.
As he won't want to disclose the deep dark secrets while his Mom and family are gonna hear/know.
He seems to want to save any chance of normality with his mom/family. As if he craves their love and compassion even thru this heinous crime.
So saving them of the gruesome details. It will seem outwardly that he was defending his mom therefore securing her love for him while he spends his time at 'her Majesty's pleasure' so to speak.

I think the kidnap plot is an excuse dreamed up after she died, to give a "nicer" reason for what happened than what really did happen. He's admitting to killing her but in a way that he can argue had good intentions...to help his mother and get Becky to appreciate life. To most people the kidnap scare plot is bad enough, yet he claims SH once mentioned a similar plot from her childhood so maybe to them it seemed feasible to them at a time when they needed to come up with a possible motive quickly.

 

[Clio]

I think if he put her in the suitcase he would not have taken her out of the boot to do it. I think it's a pretty large boot area on that car.

I wouldn't risk carrying something that could be identified as a body wrapped in a duvet in broad daylight myself. He did say he used a trolley to carry the case and he wouldn't be able to use a trolley with just a body on it. IMO.

I can't see why he would lie about using a trolley either. It shows he was struggling with the weight.

BIB Confused now. So are you saying he didn't risk this at CH? And that the body was put in the suitcase at CH because he wouldn't risk carrying it in broad daylight, even if it was wrapped in a duvet?